The script, perhaps? Only the most important part in any film. The original never really had much meat to it. It sort of teeters out in the end. The whole structure is sort of blandly episodic (Zito stalks and kills a girl, goes home talks to his mom, kills another one, meets Anna in the part, kills another one, takes Anna to dinner, etc etc)

No matter how hard this remake tries, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to retain the level of depravity, sleaziness and moral decay the original portrays so well. Why?…because New York’s underbelly no longer exists. 42nd Street’s theatres now play “respectable” films and the porno shops and peep shows have been replaced by outside restaurants and coffee houses.

That particular time in New York was essential to the story telling of the original Maniac. IT'S THE MAIN REASON WHY MANIAC'S ATMOSPHERE IS GRITTY!

Ugh...

Boy am I getting tired of hearing people kiss this stupid fucking movie's ass. Like it's ugliness and stupidity actually make it high art somehow. You know, for all the claims that it's so "depraved, sleazy," and "decayed," shouldn't it be hard to watch as in: gut-wrenching and profoundly disturbing? In a way that gets through to the viewer? I actually watched the thing and I didn't budge an inch. You can't actually disturb smart viewers without intelligence and this movie didn't bother to try. They just got a slobby, "creepy" looking fat guy (all of these are much too easy to press buttons and play on / into superficial prejudices) and had him be as pathetic as possible. Then, to try to shake things up, they threw in some mind-numbingly pretentious dialogue about photography and played on some ridiculous fantasy he had about dating a hot babe and being some part of a classier crowd of people. Like I've always said: you can't just plop an idea down in rough form and have people who like it say it's well thought-out and executed. It was not. Lustig just shot stuff and said "look at it." The only craft here is with the gore effects. And you know what? Even they weren't that impressive.

However, Jay Chattaway's score was amazing.

Yes, this movie pissed me off. But that's because it's so backward and manipulative, it's not funny. Nobody would even be making an argument that it's such a significant artistic achievement if the character didn't have a fantasy life. "See, he has depth." But the movie only pulls this out when they don't have a gruesome enough image of a death, mutilation, etc(.) or they're trying to conserve one for later. The fantasy and the grostesque imagery don't mix until the end where you think the victims are enacting their revenge (this I was down for) and the movie not only tells us that was in his head but they pulled a "there'll be a sequel" bullshit by having him open his eyes. Gee, I'm glad all those women being spinelessly slaughtered was in service to a cheap gag rather than any kind of point. Does this movie do ANYTHING right? They start building up incredible tension with the nurse's chase scene and then they tell you exactly how it's going to end the second you see that mirror. Even in 1980, everyone knew the killer will always be seen in a mirror standing behind whoever's in front of it.

And then, another moment of tension with the blonde alone in her apartment. Ending with him on top of her in bed and... this scene might actually be the single worst thing in the film. We actually get a window into her terror, we are right there every second with her, we're following her attempt to bargain (I don't remember the exact dialogue but I do think she said something to the extent of "I'll do anything if you let me go") or reason with him. The movie's barely paying attention to a single thing he's saying or doing. The captivating element is her. Then she becomes quieter and he's making little noises. Then he kills her at the most random point in his retarded little blubber-dance over her (I'm actually referring as much to his mouth as I am his fat). Now, I know what you're going to try to say: "he's fucking crazy. What do you expect?" Well, if we know that and she doesn't, why the fucking hell is the movie now opening her up as a character? Even then, let me take a step back. My problem isn't with what they did with her. I think I can understand that. It's that, even then with her being so human, we have to sit through his pathetic flapping. Or, should I say, fapping since it really does feel like he's masturbating. He's not making a connection with her, relating to her. He's just quivering and whimpering. This guy hasn't been an interesting character so far- why the fuck do I want to see him metaphorically or symbolically jerking off? I DON'T!!

I feel like this movie is a big joke and Lustig wants to go: "HA! I fooled you. You people really will go for anything you can spin into looking like art just because it's dirty." That was happening a lot in the 70's / early 80's, any random movie that's dark, skanky, or takes place on the streets turning into a cult or cinematic-snob darling (Cruising, The Prowler, Death Wish- oh forget it, the list is endless and everyone knows it). And, like I've always said, you put Deranged and Eyes of Laura Mars together and you get this. However, why not just watch these far superior films instead?

I'd gladly respond to your scattered tirade, but its clear you've not read a single post in this entire thread. I do not consider nor have I ever referred to Maniac as "high art"...actually the very opposite, I've made that EXTREMELY clear in my previous posts. So instead of dissecting Maniac as if it were Taxi Driver, I urge you to read the last couple of pages and rethink what you've posted.

I'm not pretending that I'm the only one who thinks this or the first person in this thread to criticize the film. And, you're right to an extent that not everything I said applies to you (I wanted to address everyone's arguments in defense of the film- it happens a lot of people consider the film an artistically high-minded film). But don't call what I've written scattered. You said the film was depraved, sleazy, and morally decayed. How was I supposed to read that? You are telling me you believe the movie is effective and disturbing. I disagree.

I'm not pretending that I'm the only one who thinks this or the first person in this thread to criticize the film. And, you're right to an extent that not everything I said applies to you (I wanted to address everyone's arguments in defense of the film- it happens a lot of people consider the film an artistically high-minded film). But don't call what I've written scattered. You said the film was depraved, sleazy, and morally decayed. How was I supposed to read that? You are telling me you believe the movie is effective and disturbing. I disagree.

So your views are the be all and end all on Maniac?

I disagree with what your views are on the film in the regards to what you deem to be that nobody can find anything artistic or effective in it. You seem to forget that people have different views and opinions. For me personally the movie is effecting and disturbing and it still chills me to this day, as well as being what I would consider a piece of cinematic art. I find Lustig's direction very unique, precise, and thought out and Spinell's performance is high above most slashers and I personally think is on the same wave length as DeNiro's Travis Bickle. Any and all films are subjective and individual to the viewer. And from reading your posts I can understand why you don't like the film.

It's alright to dislike a film, however it's not alright to put down others views, "in defense" as you've said, if other people like the film.

__________________"Things only seem to be magic. There is no real magic. There's no real magic ever." - Martin

I disagree with what your views are on the film in the regards to what you deem to be that nobody can find anything artistic or effective in it. You seem to forget that people have different views and opinions. For me personally the movie is effecting and disturbing and it still chills me to this day, as well as being what I would consider a piece of cinematic art. I find Lustig's direction very unique, precise, and thought out and Spinell's performance is high above most slashers and I personally think is on the same wave length as DeNiro's Travis Bickle. Any and all films are subjective and individual to the viewer. And from reading your posts I can understand why you don't like the film.

It's alright to dislike a film, however it's not alright to put down others views, "in defense" as you've said, if other people like the film.

I agree with pretty much all your thoughts on Maniac. I thought putting the perspective on developing the character of the killer was rather unique at a time when faceless slashers were a dime a dozen. Interesting film for me, though not high art, very effective.

Alas, artists like Tom Savini, the people at KNB, Rob Bottin, and Rick Baker are fading into the abyss.

Tom Savini hasn't done any major practical effects work in ages, and KNB has embraced the use of CGI to add to their effects work. I think there's a place for both to coexist and be used together, but sadly most people and filmmakers will only argue for one side or the other.

Quote:

This isn't another "hate on CGI" post by the way, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything CGI related in horror that stands the test of time like Bottin's work on The Thing and The Howling.

I won't disagree with this, but then again most of the CGI work that wows me in movies isn't the big, expensive looking shots. It's when the CGI is used to flesh out things a bit and to give something a bit more life. CGI has a limit, just like practical effects do, but again, I feel like there's room for both in film.

As far as these pics go, unless there's a closeup of a CGI blade, I bet most people won't even notice. I'm sure they'll have some shots of real blades to sell the CGI better.